“central to the social construction of the engineer is the polarity between science and sensuality, the hard and the soft, things and people. (…) the complementary values of hard/soft are also used to legitimate female exclusion from the world of engineering.” (p.145-146)

Another sentence from the book made opened up my eyes to its validity during class discussion:

“It is evident that men identify with technology and through their identification with technology men form bonds with one another.” (p.141)

At first, I disagreed with the idea that only men do this. I identify with technology and bonded with most of my male friends through technology (and paper roleplaying games and computer games.) But then I realized that this is exactly how I’ve mainly been excluded in my research group. My male colleagues bonded with each other very quickly over the vacuum chamber in a completely different way than they approached me. They never shared information other than what is strictly necessary to operate the chamber spontaneously. But those two conflicting experiences beg the question of why such bonding through technology was possible in some cases, but not this one.

The answer might have come from my psychology of culture class. In Social Psychology of Culture, Chiu and Hong summarize research done with a global approach (using the mean behavior as indicative of the culture as a whole) measuring culture differences between many countries. The list of five countries that scored the highest on feminity (p. 32) are Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Denmark, and Finland. The men I bonded with through technology were Swedish. My collagues are from countries with significantly less gender egalitarianism. This could also explain why I know so many women engineers from my childhood – they were Swedish women. I think culture moderates the impact of gender stereotypes in science and engineering to a very strong degree. The same stereotypes may be found all over the world (has someone checked?) but even if they are, their real, everyday impact on women can be worlds apart.

References
Wajcman, Judy. (1991). Feminism Confronts Technology.University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Chiu, C.-Y.; Hong, Y.-Y. (2006). Social Psychology of Culture. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Anthony Giddens touches on this in his book Runaway World. In the chapter on the family, he says

The family is a site for the struggle between tradition and modernity, but also a metaphor for them. There is perhaps more nostalgia surrounding the lost haven of the family than for any institution with its roots in the past. Politicians and activists routinely diagnose the breakdown of family life and call for a return to the traditional family.

(Giddens, 2003, p.53)

Giddens also observes that the inequality of men and women is intrinsic to the traditional families, and that equality of the sexes and especially sexual freedom of women is anathema to fundamentalist groups. Giddens also notes that fundamentalism is a new phenomenon, arising as a fearful response to modernity and globalization. Giddens defines fundamentalism as “(…) beleaguered tradition. It is tradition defended in the traditional way – by deference to ritual truth – in a globalizing world asking for reasons.” (Giddens, 2003, p. 59)

I think Lau et al’s findings tie in nicely with the idea of people rejecting reason because of anxiety over change, in this case globalization exemplified by foreigners having negative opinions of your country. You would have to be incredibly irrational and unjust to consicously believe that men are better than women and that old gender roles are good, but both men and women can temporarily use such irrationality when they feel like they’re losing their identity to globalization. I think you can see the same phenomenon in many debates around the world about women, the family and identity.

References
Giddens, Anthony. Runaway World. Routledge, New York, NY, 2003.

Glick, P., & Fiske, S.T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118.

Lau, G.P., Kay, A.C., & Spencer, S. J. (2008) Loving Those Who Justify Inequality: The Effects of System Threat on Attraction to Women Who Embody Benevolent Sexist Ideals. Psychological Science, 19, 20-21.

This article is the best explanation I’ve seen for obsession with female virginity anywhere. Perhaps globally, I’m the weird one. I wish I remembered where I read this, but I recently saw a study that concluded that female virginity was prized everywhere except the Nordic countries and the Netherlands, where no one really cared one way or the other. Until I moved back to the US as an adult, I just considered it rather matter-of-fact that no one marries as a virgin. In fact, it seemed (and still seems) rather unwise, a bit like getting married when you’re 15. Sure, do what you want, but… it’s not good for you. You will probably regret it one day, because you haven’t experienced enough of life to make such a big choice yet. I still have a lot of trouble understanding why you would even want to marry a virgin. It’s a little creepy to purposefully want to marry someone who’s incredibly naive, when marriage is supposed to be a partnership. It gives the whole thing overtones of domination and deception. Not exactly my idea of a good marriage.

I hope there is a place for me too somewhere, and for once my concern isn’t cultural marginalization.

I do not think that for me as a woman to be suspicious of people, but especially men, from cultures widely known to have oppressive ideas about women is racist. It simply doesn’t have anything to do with skin color, it has to do with culture and cultural-societal constructs. I’m a bit suspicious of, frankly, all men on this count. However, with 99% of the men I encounter, they do not give me any indication that it is anything but suspicion, and I drop it and proceed with business. With partners that aren’t from the handful of countries that have reconstructed social reality to the point where a dad who doesn’t do half of the housework and pick up the kids at daycare is a deadbeat dad, I have always worried about how they will behave as a partner. At any rate, no matter how delicately you have to handle cultural imperialism, positing universals where there may or may not be any, etc – this isn’t a general case of a woman in one country getting pissed about how sexism another country is. I’m pissed about how an expatriate to one of the countries I’m from is applying cultural norms from another country to me, much to my detriment. My heart tells me that a woman from his country has all right to be pissed for the same reasons I am and probably more that she might know and I don’t, but that’s for her and her sisters-in-arms to fight. However, I cannot see why this man ought to be allowed to break all kinds of (at least supposed) norms of this society that we’re both in and oppress me because I’m a woman simply because he’s an expatriate and part of a racial minority. That makes no sense whatsoever. I’ve spent my life adjusting to cultures, and this is what I get? Imported, sanctioned oppression?

I’m seriously considering giving automatic bonus credits to Western European men for being more respectful. Thing is, they’ve pissed me off plenty too.. just not in the same, insanely ridiculously completely unapologetic ways as others. Including American men. I’ve heard some sick shit come out of the mouths of American men.

And I have to admit… it feels good to think ‘go to hell’ straight off, because then I don’t have to go through the same thing I’ve gone through for most of this academic year: give them the benefit of the doubt, be polite when they’re asses, be polite but curt when they try to make you their mom or try to order you around, and they stay the hell away from them because they’re so annoying. Every time here so far. K at Knox was fine – never had any problems with him – but man. Every single deshi guy I’ve had to deal with more than in passing since then has been a needy, unaware ass of some kind. I’m sick of this shit. I’m sure there are nice guys out there but they’re going to have to prove themselves first.

So now I have to ask myself: If I ever have children, would it be immoral of me to raise them completely outside the Nordic countries, knowing that? Or completely outside wherever I think gender relations are the best, if that isn’t the Nordic countries at that point?

I have heard many people say that you shouldn’t be allowed to come here. I have heard regular people – not just the extremists on the far right – say that you don’t try to fit in here and you create your own communities within our community and don’t understand the larger community you are part of. I have also heard people say that you are lazy, that you just want to mooch off of our welfare systems, and that you don’t respect women – not those from your countries nor those from ours. I have always thought – and said – that these claims are not reasonable, that most people regardless where they are from are normal, hard-working, honest, respectful people who not only can be part of our societies but can enrich them. I have always thought that open borders make everyone better off in the end.

Both for society at large an in my personal life, I have assumed that a simple model of respect should and is followed. When a minority of people from culture A are trying to live among a majority of culture B, respect is shown for the minority by the majority by being patient with their cultural gaffes and explaining the basis for traditions and manners – by helping the minority understand the majority. Respect is shown for the majority by the minority by the minority trying to adjust and understand the majority.

Basically, I envisioned a simple contract – mistakes are forgiven, because the minority is trying to learn how the majority works, and both try to find common ground so that they can get along. The minority does not have to adjust completely to the majority in every way, but it does have to adjust in key cultural norms and behaviors. The majority does not have to accept all of the minority’s cultural behaviors, but some difference in behavior and thought must be tolerated. However, if there is a clash of fundamental values such that the majority and the minority hold mutually incompatible values that are so fundametal that neitherwill give them up, then two options remain. Either then minority must choose to leave, or they must give up those cultural norms after all.

If the minority were refugees, relocation should be attempted, but refugees are a different case from the one that has recently irritated me immensely. When the minority has chosen to come to country B, they have simultaneously agreed to make these cultural adjustments to the country they have chosen to move to. If they have misjudged and realize that their cultural norms are incompatible with the majority’s, they still have to adjust if they stay. Just like one cannot rearrange someone else’s house to be like one’s own when one is visiting, one cannot expect a host country to adjust to your ideas of how things should be run unless you are also prepared to rearrange your country for visitors or expatriates.

It’s really very simple: if you choose to come to the West, you have also chosen Westernization. You cannot come here and be the same person you would have been if you hadn’t left. For example, if you want a Western education for its academic excellence, you have to consent to cultural Westernization as well. If you try to reject Western cultural norms, you are both not using your experience to the fullest and are being very rude to your hosts, who are not under any moral obligation to let you come to their country. You don’t have to bow and say thank you incessantly, but you do have to keep in mind that you are in someone else’s home. You don’t get to pull the shots. You have to adjust to them, though, when someone else pulls them.

One of the values that absolutely must be respected and practiced every day is egalitarianism. Secular humanism and its values are extremely important in all Western countries (even though American has its own peculiar Christian fundamentalists that reject many humanist values), but out of all its values egalitarianism is the one that underlies almost all human interactions. If you cannot make egalitarianism a value of yours, you should not come to the West at all, or go home if you are already here. The equality of women and men, poor and rich, white, brown, olive, and black, straight and queer, old and young, married and single, powerful and disenfranchised is a value that is completely non-negotiable. Sure, you can find plenty of examples to the contrary. In fact, we have many academic departments studying just how that much principle is violated in practice. But that should also tell you something. No one can argue to justify the discovered violations without being ostracized by society. Once someone says, “You treated me badly because you think I am not equal to that other person”, you must defend yourself or accept condemnation by others.

The example that is closest to my heart is equality of men and women. Society has subscribed to egalitarianism for a long time, but it has collectively only slowly realized its logical implications. Women have pointed out for a long time that if all humans are equal, then women must be equal to men in value and humanity and importance, and therefore women must be respected just as much as men are. Or, looking at it from our side, men should be respected just as much as we are. Women have fought for a long time for what is only a logical consequence of a deeply held cultural value. We have been punished harshly physically and mentally for our resistance to mistreatement and abuse by men, but things have progressed. There is still a long way to go, but we can look back and see where we started 300 years ago a long way behind us. I am proud as a woman of my female ancestors, who fought for my freedom. I know my grandmother would be extremely proud of me and my mother, if she were still alive. The world holds so much opportunity for me – so much more than for my grandmother, who was desperately poor in her childhood and had no opportunity for education. I am pursuing a Ph. D. in a male-dominated, high-paying field, I speak five languages, and have legislation and more awareness backing up my right to exist, so to speak.

So, to you who have come to the West: Respect me or go home. I will not put up with your gender roles and your social roles that are based on that someone is always superior. You have no right – no right – to come here and use those values. If you insist on using them – go home. Pack your bags and go home, where you can treat people like shit in peace. Don’t you dare come here and think you can talk down to me, order me around and sexually harrass me and call me a slut because you’d do that at home to a woman. When you came here, you agreed to egalitarianism. That it’s your “culture” is irrelevant. You agreed to something different when you came here. And if you looked, women where you came from probably have a lot they’d like to change about your culture when it comes to oppression of women, too. Don’t you come here and think you’re so superior – don’t you forget that I don’t give a shit who your daddy is, I don’t give a shit how much money you have, I don’t give a shit how hot you think you are – if you can’t treat me with respect, you’re getting jack shit back. Simple. Adjust or go home. We didn’t have to let you come here in the first place, and you chose to come. Tough shit if you can’t handle it.